10-9-25 - 9am - Following the Law and Sequestering Carbon

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael, I want to thank you for playing those
speeches today. I know Kennedy nor Trump is perfect, but
Kennedy was the last president I trusted until Trump, and
hearing that stuff today helps reignite my love for my country.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
Thank you.

Speaker 3 (00:31):
The past three hours have been an example of I
do show prep. This is something that I think is important.
It's something that interests me. He gives you some perspective
and I think it's something that we lack in our

(00:51):
twenty four hour, seven day a week news cycle. I know,
you know, even my own program directory might object. Hey,
you went on too long for that, really, because I
bet there's I bet we got some p ones that
listened all three hours of that, And if you didn't,
I bet there's some Pea ones or some other listeners

(01:12):
that will. Oh, you know, I want to hear what
else he had to say about what was Eisenhower doing?
What really happened? And you go listen to the podcast
submission accomplished. We talked yesterday about Judge Immergut, the judge
in Oregon, and the timeline that we went through detailed

(01:33):
timeline of her decisions about preventing Trump from deploying the
national guard in Oregon. And one of the things that
I probably didn't emphasize enough, but I want to make
sure you understand before I launch into this next topic
about judicial impeachment is something that she did. Now, granted

(01:57):
my standard caveat here, this is based on research that
I did before I went to bed last night. So
who knows what she did, because remember she's also the
one that was issuing temporary restraining orders on a weekend
and on a Sunday. But best I can tell, she
still has a tro a temporary restraining order preventing Trump

(02:20):
from doing something that he.

Speaker 2 (02:21):
Had not yet done.

Speaker 3 (02:23):
Well, that's like Dragon going to get a temporary restraining
order or asking for a restraining order against me to stay.
How many feet are part are we? Are we fifty
feet apart?

Speaker 2 (02:34):
Maybe I'd say closer to thirty thirty, So.

Speaker 3 (02:36):
We're thirty feet apart. That I can't get closer than
thirty feet because well, I haven't you know, it's I
missed the first of the month bath, so I stink. Well,
I haven't come near him yet. I haven't done anything yet.
So he's probably not going to get a restraining order
because there's nothing upon which a court to for a

(02:57):
court to ask to act. And that's the same with
issuing a temporary restraining order to stop a president from
doing something that he hasn't done. Now, has he done
it elsewhere, yes, but that's not what's before the court. Remember,
these restraining orders are supposed to be about action that

(03:18):
is occurring in front of you. That's why we had
If you go back and you dig into the archives
of this program, that you will see that we were
objecting to running to a judge in Texas to stop
Trump from doing something in another state, or running to
a judge in d C to stop him from doing
something in California.

Speaker 2 (03:41):
You need the judges.

Speaker 3 (03:43):
You have to have standing, and the judges have to
have a case in controversy in front of them, and
they have to have jurisdiction over those parties. So how
do you fix this problem or how do you least
address the problem, Because I don't know if this will
fix the problem, but it might address the problem. But

(04:07):
the problem that we face is it's a predicament. Federal
district judges in just a handful of courthouses are issuing
these temporary restraining orders, and they're also issuing those nationwide
injunctions that we've talked about.

Speaker 2 (04:24):
And what that does is that halt's lawful.

Speaker 3 (04:27):
Executive action, even after a Supreme Court limits nationwide relief
in the absence of certifying under the class action lawsuits
certifying a particular class, which is not that easy to do.

(04:48):
So you just can't say that the class includes all
illegal aliens or all people present within the borders of
the United States without lawful authority. You just can't make
it that broad. Got to define the class. So these
judges kind of put themselves between the elected policy and execution,

(05:13):
and they know that the appeals take time and that
a victory on the merits that might be against them
the judge, a victory on the merits in the Supreme
Court that only comes about after months of mischief, after
months of these things going on. So I just ask

(05:34):
you a simple question. Do you know how I'm a stickler,
a real stickler about following the law, and that it's
frustrating at times because following the law means that a
judge or an actor does something that I disagree with,
and I say, well, we can either fix that politically

(05:56):
by removing that person from office through impeachment or through
an election, or we can if you have a basis
to do so, you can sue that individual. But now
you've got well, you've got scheduling conferences, you've got interrogatories,
you've got depositions, you got all the discovery. Then you

(06:17):
have all the pre trial motions. Then if you're going
to a jury trial, you will have all of that,
and then you have the appeals. And then someday, when
you're one hundred and twenty five years old, you might
make it to the US Supreme Court. It takes time,
but again that's because we're a nation of laws, not
a nation of men. But I ask you a question.
Does Congress have to sit.

Speaker 2 (06:38):
Back and not do anything?

Speaker 3 (06:40):
Does Congress just simply have to wait for the Supreme
Court to make a decision about nationwide injunctions before they
could do something. No, the Constitution actually gives the Congress
a tool that does not depend on Senate boats.

Speaker 2 (07:02):
For removal.

Speaker 3 (07:05):
Impeachment. You may think you understand everything about impeachment. I
don't think I understand everything about impeachment. I do understand
this getting impeached that acts as a deterrent. I told
you one of my biggest fears in life is ever having,
you know, getting you know, unlawfully thrown in jail somewhere.

(07:28):
I've been in jails. I've when I was a baby lawyer,
I represented a lot of people that were were denied
bail in a couple of murder cases and in a
situation where they couldn't afford bail. So I kind of
know what like county jails are like. And I've visited
some state penitentiaries. I've never been to Supermax. I'd love

(07:51):
to go visit Supermax, simply because I'd like to see
what it's like in person. But I have this inordinate
and irrational fear of being jailed that acts as a deterrent.
I'm prone to be a law abiding, moral citizen, but

(08:13):
who knows, in these days, if you can get if
you can get arrested for posting a meme, I could
be arrested for something I said on the air.

Speaker 2 (08:20):
Who knows.

Speaker 3 (08:21):
I mean, it's just who knows. The Constitution supplies that tool, impeachment,
and if properly used, it can act as a deterrent
because removal from you know, removal of somebody is not
the only point of impeachment. I've told you about Alsie Hastings,

(08:42):
the judge, the former federal judge in Florida who was impeached.
He was found guilty by the US Senate, and he
was removed from his lifetime appointment as a federal judge
in Florida. But being the idiots that we are, and
the idiots and that partic to a congressional district, he
got elected to Congress. But I'm telling you, punishment by process,

(09:09):
reputational sanction, and the practical sidelining that follows impeachment are
very real to Terrence. A small number of well chosen impeachments,
sustained through a full Senate trial might just change the
behavior across the entire judiciary, even if there's not.

Speaker 2 (09:29):
One single conviction that follows from it.

Speaker 3 (09:34):
I've thought long and hard about this because the claim
and my contention might seem paradoxical. If conviction is impossible,
then why even impeach. Well, I might ask you if
a district attorney or a prosecutor sincerely believes that you
committed a crime, and they sincerely believe they have the evidence,

(09:59):
and they bring an indictment against you, but you're found
not guilty because they couldn't prove the evidence beyond the
guilt beyond the reasonable doubt. Was that a waste of time?
Not necessarily so, because it shows that if you think
about committing that crime, you're going to think about, Oh,

(10:22):
that person went through all of that, now, whew, they
got by with it, or they were found not guilty,
or they didn't have the evidence to prove guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt. But it does act as a deterrent.
I think impeachment is the same thing. You don't have
to be removed from office. In other words, the president
doesn't have to be removed from office, or a judge

(10:44):
does not have to be removed from the bench through impeachment.
Going through the process alone sends a signal to all
the other judges, Hey, you know what, We're pretty serious
about you following the law. We're pretty serious about you
staying within your lane. We're pretty seriou aou When the
Supreme Court says that you should not issue nationwide injunctions,
but you continue to do so, We're going to take

(11:06):
it seriously and we're going to impeach you. Hm.

Speaker 2 (11:12):
Some trial judges that are acting politically.

Speaker 3 (11:17):
Might wake up and say, I'm not sure I want
to do that because think of what that means. Let's
just take Judge Immergut for example, out in Oregon. She
would face months of public examination, she would lose all
of her case assignments. In practice, she would be she
would face I don't know, six figure seven figure legal expenses,

(11:40):
and then she might face the prospect of a Senate
gallery that is listening as the Senate reads formal accusations
on Life TV. She might actually think twice before issuing
some adventurous order that is destined ultimately to be vacated
by the US Supreme Court. To see why, I consider
what impeachment is not in theory but in practice. Let's

(12:03):
talk about the practicalities of an impeachment. So, in terms
of just the Constitution itself, it's a remedial device that
the framers put in there to protect us by allowing
a procedure to remove people that are deemed to be
unfit for office, either because you're mentally and physically unfit

(12:25):
or because you committed high crimes and misdemeanors. It's a
slow burning process. It's a slow burn. The House investigates, well,
that's gonna take a lot of time. That means you're
gonna have show up for depositions, You're gonna to show
up for hearings. You're probably gonna end up on the TV.

(12:48):
It drafts articles. Oh, now they're gonna debate those articles,
and then they vote the Senate then, you know, and
if they vote to impeach it, it gets, it gets,
you know, carried over to the US Senate. Every single
step is public. It's just laden with lawyers and it's
very time consuming. And I always told clients this, Oh

(13:11):
I want to go do so and so, okay, well
are you ready for them to depose you? All you're
thinking about is you get to depose the person you're
going after because you think they did something wrong. Well,
their lawyers get to ask you a bunch of questions.
And in a deposition you can as a lawyer, I
can object till the cows come home. But guess what,
you still have to answer the question. Because that's a deposition.

(13:34):
You're not in the courtroom. You're in some building, some
you're in some conference room where there's a you know,
a stenographer taking down everything. So if I'm asking a
question that is irrelevant, they can object say it's irrelevant.
I still have to answer the question. So depositions are
not fun things to go through because now you're on

(13:57):
the record. So that's what I mean by every step
is public, it's lawyer heavy, it's time consuming. And then
what happens usually well investigations. You know, something is said
or something is proven, or something is discovered, and that
investigation becomes even wider. Now witnesses get drawn in, and
if you're a smart witness, you'll probably retain a lawyer,

(14:18):
and then discovery starts. And when you start discovery, like
depositions are interrogatories, suddenly you start you start finding uncomfortable
facts about what goes on in speaking about a judge,
what goes on in your chamber, what kind of ex party,
or what kind of sidebars do you have that are
probably unethical, but nobody does anything about because well, that

(14:41):
judge and that lawyer are friends and they're just having
coffee talking about stuff.

Speaker 2 (14:45):
Oh really, m tell us what you talked about. We
see you.

Speaker 3 (14:50):
I don't think most judges want to face an impeachment,
and then judicial counsels might step in and they would
strip an impeached judge of new case assignments or reassign
their doct to preserve public confidence, which means that impeached
judge is in office. And of course, yeah, they're going
to get paid, but they're just twiddling their thumbs to

(15:11):
paid vacation. If you love what you do, you're not
gonna like that. Oh you will for the first week
or two. But I'm talking in an impeachment process that's
going to take months, if not a year, maybe even longer.
That in and of itself, and the fact that you

(15:32):
have been impeached says to the public questions have been raised. Now,
I don't want that done on a whim. I want
it done on the basis of, for example, a judge immigrant.
If Congress truly believes that they're ignoring Supreme Court directives

(15:53):
about nationwide injunctions, then yes, go impeach. But if you're
just impeaching because you don't like the decision of the judge,
now I think you've crossed the line. So I'm going
to be very careful that I'm very particular about. I'm
not saying, just Willy Neary, go and peach a judge
because you don't like their rulings. Go and peach a
judge because you believe and you think you have evidence

(16:14):
to show that they are ignoring the law goes back.
Let's go back to nineteen fifty seven. Let's go back
to nineteen sixty two, nineteen sixty three, where they believed
that those governors were ignoring the Supreme Court orders. So
the executive acted. I'm just saying here, Oh, the legislative

(16:37):
can act because the founders gave them a mechanism.

Speaker 2 (17:00):
My father in law works at super max. Maybe I
could hook you up, but it cost you lunch.

Speaker 4 (17:08):
It does not shock me that he knows somebody who
works in supermacs, but it does shock me that he's married.

Speaker 2 (17:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (17:18):
Yeah, that was a good catch, very good catch. Now
here's the dilemma. You know, he's a figment of our imagination. Yeah,
we have a stereotype in our brain. We both do
of how he acts, what he looks like, what he

(17:41):
does everything.

Speaker 4 (17:43):
Right, Yeah, we can even picture his truck.

Speaker 3 (17:45):
Oh, totally. In fact, think about the cab on the inside. Disgusting.
It's like Ryan's Futon, right, It's just you know, there's
cigarette cigarette burns, and there's you know, you know, paper
rappers from the burgers and the cheeseburgers, the lot lizard
stains everywhere. I mean, it's it's pretty disgusting, right, it's

(18:09):
probably just probably you know exactly Tamer's dad would do that.

Speaker 2 (18:11):
He go pheasant hunting and think he got all the
pheasants out of the back.

Speaker 3 (18:15):
But you know, we climb in and oh what what's
Oh how long has this pheasant been under the seat?

Speaker 2 (18:22):
Oh yeah, I think there's that going on.

Speaker 3 (18:26):
Uh, he's got his radio cranked up, listening to us,
and he's he's weaving down the highway called like Chevy Chase,
you know in one of the vacation movies, just weaving
in and out of traffic, scaring the hell out of everybody.
And we're gonna go to Florence. I mean, we're not
gonna ride. I'm not gonna ride in the truck with him.

(18:46):
There's no way that's happening. But does he meet us
there or does he do we have lunch with him?

Speaker 2 (18:57):
Here?

Speaker 3 (18:59):
I I worry about I can get the I can
get the old security detailed gang back together, and they could,
you know, like just kind of come along with us,
not that I don't trust him or anything, and I
don't trust him.

Speaker 4 (19:13):
Do we have to have lunch with him, Or can
we just do all right, here's you know, five dollars
a McDonald's money the Monopoly games coming back. Can we
just give him one of the stickers, it's free prize.

Speaker 3 (19:25):
Let's just go through and pick up a couple of
cheeseburgers for ourselves and then just give him the Monopoly
stickers inside your ears lunch. Or I'll get him a
McDonald's a gift guard. That's what I'll do. I'll go
and get him a gift card, you know, at the
same time that I'm buying the dogs there McDonald's. I'll
get one for that dog. And then the whole question

(19:50):
is what would happen if I mean, I know what
you look like. Unfortunately I know what I look like.
We have in our minds what we think he looks like.
I know how you act in public. I know how
I will I you know, I'm very esteemed in public,
so I would have to, you know, lower my standards.

(20:11):
But how would the three of us be perceived sitting
in a either I don't care pick either a greasy
diner or a hoity toity restaurant. How's that going to
be perceived by the public? And what if people wreck.

Speaker 4 (20:25):
I mean, then you know, will be recognized in Supermax,
probably think we're belonging there and not let us out right.

Speaker 2 (20:33):
And then that's my fear.

Speaker 3 (20:35):
I mean, this is this is his brother in law,
and they probably both owe each other favors. So when
I want to see, you know, like one of the cells,
and I hear the door moving, do I have time
to jump out?

Speaker 4 (20:49):
You're gonna have the Indiana Joe and your way out right?

Speaker 3 (20:51):
Or do I get stuck in a cell? And then
I hear that laugh. I hear the laugh, and then
the sun starts.

Speaker 2 (21:02):
To go down, and then pretty soon it's dark and.

Speaker 3 (21:07):
I'm screaming and yelling, and you two have gone off
to Pueblo somewhere to have dinner. Well you are, You're
You're in Lausenburg at the truck stop looking for lot lizards.

(21:27):
You know, it's a good thing that I don't own
any assets, because he'd be suing me for libel and
slander right now. But there's there's nothing to get So
to think that we're spending this much time on air valuable?
Is this time valuable or not? I don't know anymore.
I don't read it's really valuable or not, But regardless,
we're spending airtime discussing a what I believe to be

(21:49):
a P one listener.

Speaker 2 (21:51):
Yeah, and whether we really want to.

Speaker 3 (21:53):
Risk our lives, our reputations, our marriages, everything. You'll have
lunch with that dirt bag? Do we really want to
do that?

Speaker 4 (22:00):
I was trying to think, is there any one of
our listeners, any of the twelve that we may want
to have lunch with or anything? And I just it
was just thinking, we haven't heard from our favorite Jew.
We've got this great news.

Speaker 3 (22:11):
Oh no, I'm worried about him. Isn't he the whey
had prostate cancer?

Speaker 2 (22:15):
Yes? Okay, we need to hear from our favorite from.

Speaker 4 (22:19):
What we were told he had a while still. Yeah,
but so favorite Jew out there.

Speaker 2 (22:24):
Yeah, we need to hear from you.

Speaker 4 (22:25):
We need an update.

Speaker 2 (22:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (22:26):
The show's almost over today, so so feel free leave
a talk back over the evening and the afternoon and
I'll play it tomorrow.

Speaker 3 (22:33):
So, now, is it is it wrong to say that
we would go have lunch of dinner with the Jew?
But the dumb white guy, the dumb white truck driver,
I'm assuming he's white.

Speaker 2 (22:42):
I don't know why. I think because of the laugh.

Speaker 4 (22:45):
Oh, the only catches we'll have to pay for one
of them versus the other. Not the probably not the other.
What you decided which is which is the truck driver
or the Jew?

Speaker 3 (22:58):
So the question for the day is who's gonna buy
lunch for us? The truck driver with a jew. That's
the joke by itself right there, that's the joke.

Speaker 4 (23:09):
Gold And ask Kamenski, truck driver and jew walking to
a bar with two radio.

Speaker 2 (23:12):
Hosts, who buys lunch?

Speaker 3 (23:15):
You need to ask Kamenski today, what's the answer if
you and I go to lunch with a jew or
truck driver in which situation? Who pays what? Yeah, we're awful,
We're awful, but you know what, I'm tired anyway, And.

Speaker 4 (23:31):
He was almost Friday, the show's almost over. We had
history class for the first three hours. So yeah, you're right,
this is like passing period right now. You just need that,
you know, five to ten minutes to just goof off.

Speaker 3 (23:45):
It feels good, doesn't it sure does. It feels very
very good. And it feels even better because we're just
ragging on somebody. We're taking out all of our frustrations
inventing that we'd like to take out on other people.
We're taking out on AM, which is should be very
very discouraging for people to want to leave talkbacks.

Speaker 4 (24:07):
You never know anybody wants to leave a talkbacker on here.

Speaker 3 (24:11):
Well, we had the one guy that was, you know,
well I touched the button or what was he saying? Now?

Speaker 2 (24:17):
What do I do?

Speaker 3 (24:17):
Now?

Speaker 2 (24:18):
What I do?

Speaker 1 (24:18):
Now?

Speaker 2 (24:18):
What I do?

Speaker 1 (24:19):
Now?

Speaker 2 (24:19):
What do I do? This thing work?

Speaker 3 (24:20):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (24:20):
Does this thing works? This thing work? Of course?

Speaker 3 (24:22):
You know the truck driver is probably looking down thinking
to himself, does this thing work?

Speaker 2 (24:35):
Who was I going to do this? Who knows what was?

Speaker 3 (24:38):
Oh? I did know what I was gonna do. I'll
go ahead and start this story because this really is infuriating.
When I'm doing my Michael Brown Minutes, I'm trying to
find local stories because management wants me since I'm the
only local voice on Freedom, they want me to do local,
little local news promos. Sometimes sometimes I really have to
dig it's like this, because once again, if it doesn't

(25:01):
interest me, if I can't make it into something kind
of interesting, I just I move on.

Speaker 2 (25:06):
This one caught my eye.

Speaker 3 (25:08):
This comes from the Denver Gazette four hundred and eighty
acre project Now, I don't know if you've never lived
on a farm or you don't know anything about section
line roads. Four hundred and eighty acres is less than
a square mile, It's less than a section. So four
hundred eighty acre project will rehabilitate school trust land near Alamosa,

(25:31):
sequester carbon and increased school revenues. That caught my attention.
First paragraph, the Colorada State Land Boord approved a new
partnership that aims to restore degraded range land while opening
a new revenue stream for public schools.

Speaker 2 (25:50):
Okay, you're bearing the lead because you told me it.

Speaker 3 (25:53):
Was going to sequester carbon in addition to rehabilitating some
degraded range land and increased revenues. You told me was
going to sequester carbon. Why is that not in the
first sentenced to Denver Gazette. Second paragraph, the board authorized
a fifteen year grassland carbon lease on four hundred eight

(26:14):
four hundred and eighty acres northwest of Alamosa to a
company from Wyoming called Land and Carbon, Inc. The company
does this quote restores degraded lands with science driven, nature
based carbon solutions to capture gigatons of CO two.

Speaker 2 (26:38):
Now, the gazette says, we didn't say that.

Speaker 3 (26:41):
They said that in a press release from the Colorado
State Land Board. Really, I've since lost my no I do,
I do have it here. Annual US man made CO
two emissions for twenty twenty four are estimated at four

(27:03):
point eight billion metric tons in just one year. Now,
I'm not saying there's any cause of link between those
man made corbon emissions and climate change. I'm just pointing
out that man made CO two emissions from at least
one source that I found online is estimated at four

(27:25):
point eight billion metric tons in just one year. What's
this company going to do?

Speaker 4 (27:31):
Mike, love them or hate them?

Speaker 2 (27:33):
Trump is a flipping stud. His stud Look at Israel sud.
He's done the impossible. SUD is Trump a stud. I
wasn't sure he was clear. I hate even know.

Speaker 3 (27:54):
I hate when they leave those wishy, washy kind of talkbacks.
Come God, tell us what you really think to hear
what we're talking? Yeah, I know, I am, But that's okay.

Speaker 2 (28:05):
Son, stun stop it.

Speaker 3 (28:10):
So this iside. So the Colorado Land Board leases four
hundred and eighty acres down somewhere around Alamosa, and they're
going to sequester carbon Carbon is. This is according to
the director of the State LAMB Bureau a Board Carbon
is a new frontier for the Trust and this partnership
ensures that our lands are part of Colorado's climate solutions.

(28:31):
This project will land with Landing Carbon is part of
our effort to diversify revenue streams for schools while improving
the health of our natural and working lands. Now you
dig through the story, the ground rent for the project
is a dollar fifteen acre increases three percent a year.

(28:52):
They get ten percent of gross revenue from the voluntary
carbon credit sales. Now, I told you before the break
that the annual US man made carbon emissions for just
the United States. I don't know how they calculate that
was some how they calculated is estimated at four point
eight billion metric tons. The Land Board is all excited

(29:17):
because the company will use receding soil amendments and water
management to rebuild native grasslands and capture and estimated X
number of metric tons of carbon dioxide in the first
fifteen years. Now we do four point eight billion metric

(29:43):
tons in just one year. So fourteen point eight where's
my little calculator? Fourteen point eight times fifteen equals two
hundred twenty two billion tons over a fifteen year period.

(30:06):
This company, on that four hundred and eighty acres of
land is going to capture an estimated, not for certain,
but an estimated ten thousand tons, ten thousand tons.

Speaker 2 (30:23):
Yep, the climate has been.

Speaker 3 (30:24):
Solved in Alamosa, Colorado. Out of two hundred and twenty
two billion metric tons over a fifteen year period, they're
going to capture ten thousand tons.

Speaker 2 (30:37):
We do the math.